Mair and Others v. Aberdeen Harbour Commissioners [1909] ScotLR 491 (05 March 1909)

Mair and Others v. Aberdeen Harbour Commissioners [1909] ScotLR 491 (05 March 1909)

The harbour authorities took all reasonable means to provide a safe berth for the 'Trustful.' The risk from river-borne ice was not peculiar or unknown, and was an ordinary incident of navigation. There was no special duty to warn, as the risk was equally apparent to the vessel's master. The accident was not due to any fault or negligence of the harbour authorities but to natural causes beyond their control. Therefore, the defenders are not liable in damages.

Citation
[1909] ScotLR 491
Parties
Pursuers (respondents): George Mair and others; Defenders (appellants): Aberdeen Harbour Commissioners
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
05 March 1909
Procedural Posture
Civil (reparation/negligence) / Appeal From Sheriff Substitute to Inner House, First Division
Outcome
Appeal sustained; interlocutor of Sheriff-Substitute recalled; defenders assoilzied (absolved) from the action.
Legal Topics
Negligence of Harbour Authorities, Duty of Care in Harbouring Vessels, Liability for Natural Events (vis Major), Obligation to Warn of Risks, Safe Berth Provision
Tort Maritime Law Contract Negligence of Harbour Authorities Duty of Care in Harbouring Vessels Liability for Natural Events (vis Major) Obligation to Warn of Risks Safe Berth Provision

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Mair and others

Pursuers (respondents)

Aberdeen Harbour Commissioners

Defenders (appellants)

Procedural Posture

Civil (reparation/negligence) / Appeal From Sheriff Substitute to Inner House, First Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether harbour authorities were negligent in failing to provide a safe berth or warn of risk from ice
  2. 2 Whether the accident was due to vis major or inevitable accident
  3. 3 Whether there was contributory negligence by the pursuers

Ratio Decidendi

The harbour authorities took all reasonable means to provide a safe berth for the 'Trustful.' The risk from river-borne ice was not peculiar or unknown, and was an ordinary incident of navigation. There was no special duty to warn, as the risk was equally apparent to the vessel's master. The accident was not due to any fault or negligence of the harbour authorities but to natural causes beyond their control. Therefore, the defenders are not liable in damages.

Court Disposition

Appeal sustained; interlocutor of Sheriff-Substitute recalled; defenders assoilzied (absolved) from the action.

Orders

  • Recall the interlocutor of the Sheriff-Substitute dated 6th April 1908.
  • Find that it was not a term, express or implied, of the contract that the defenders should indemnify the pursuers against damage from natural causes such as river ice.